Above the Law....

It seems to me that the Congress is the one disobeying the Law and the Constitution. The constitution provides for executive privilege and a vote of Congress does not remove that, it seems to me.

What we have here is a political witchhunt. There has yet, to my knowledge, to be any legitimate accusation of illegal or unethical activity. What we have is a president who did something the constitution gives him the right to do.

We have a similar situation to Libby in that people are in danger of criminal allegations because of an investigation into something which is universally known not to be illegal. In Libby's case (he should not have done what he did), he should have never been put in that position, given the fact that the answer was already known. In this case, Miers and others should not be put in this position.

 

Yep they are on a witchhunt for reasons for impeachment to gain favor for the 08 elections. They want to destroy a man for political gain.

 

Libby was prosecuted and found guilty to put pressure on him to speak about the administration. Rangle is all upset and all over the tv news because now they feel like they lost their leverage to get libby to talk since he will not see jail time. It is a witchhunt.

 

Above the law? Not really. That's a Bush hater's claim.

We were here about 14 times with Clinton's executive privilege claims.

A court may have to settle this one, as they did Clinton's, but legal precedent does not make it "unlawful", nor amazing, to claim the privilege.

 

Well, since they're after Bush, doesn't that make Bush=witch?

 

Their power does not include the ability to eavesdrop on WH communication. Remember, there is a separation of powers.

We know that because prosecutors work at the pleasure of the president. He can fire them at anytime for any reason. Furthermore, they did offer to cooperate with Congress and Congress rejected it.

I was watching the subcommittee hearing last night. For the subpoena to be lawful, it must be in pursuit of information not available elsewhere and information likely to provide evidence. The subpoena of these people is to gain information that was already offered through meetings so it is available elsewhere and it is not likely to provide solid evidence.

So Congress appears to have had no authority to issue subpoenas in this matter. That was the position of Reno under Clinton, Carter's AG, and Rehnquist under Nixon. So this is hardly a new issue.

This is true, but the investigation should have never gotten that far. When you know the answer to the question you are charged with investigating, you stop the investigation.

 

What portion of the Constitution does this? None. It is merely a device used by Presidents that has never been tested, nor has contempt of Congress. Both are afraid of pushing it to the courts for fear of losing.

 

Actually, in the Nixon case the Supreme Court recognized the validity of the privilege under Article II. They did not recognize it as a absolute privilege, however.

I agree that neither side wants to test it. Personally I think in this case it would hold up. In Nixon, Nixon was trying to conceal audiotapes to protect against criminal charges. I think the court ruled that the larger need for truth in criminal matters overruled the privilege. That does not exist here since there is no illegal or criminal activity, aside from possibly the rejecting of the subpoena.

I think Miers yesterday made the mistake of not at least showing up and claiming the privilege. One of the complaints several made in the hearing yesterday was that she didn't show up. She should have showed up and refused to say anything.

I also watched Sara Taylor the night before. She showed up and claimed the privilege a lot, and spoke a little though probably too much on some issues and the Senate pointed out some inconsistencies in her claiming of the privilege.

I think in this case, if there has been some seriously criminal activity, the privilege would be overruled. But I don't think it will be in this case.

To what degree can Congress investigate the internal deliberations of another branch of Congress? Can they demand that CJ Roberts come and testify as to how the Supreme Court doles out opinion writing? Or how their internal deliberation works? I don't think so and I don't think anyone would even entertain that notion. And for good reason. It is absurd on its face. Now, if there was evidence that the SCOTUS was taking bribes, that's a different matter.

Furthermore, remember that the WH offered to make these people available to testify. The Dems didn't want that because they wanted the public hearing in a political maneuver, and I think it is coming back to haunt them. The question is, Will the WH take advantage of that and use this as a club to beat them with? They should ... What do they have to lose?

If I were the WH, I would scorn the Congress for these subpoenas regarding information and conversations that were available to them months ago. I would do the same thing Clinton did over the budget shutdown. Use it as a club to beat Congressional Dems up for playing politics while the country's business isn't getting done.

 

Rangle went on tv and admitted that they were angry because now that Libby will not se jail time he will not feel the need to speak about the information they are looking for on this administration. If the court was filled with folks like yourself Libby was bound to be found guilty no matter what.

 

Isn't it interesting how those who were screaming for Bill Clinton's head on a platter for lying to a grand jury over a personal affair, wish to give Libby a pass for lying to a grand jury over a public matter. Sauce for the goose guys, you can't have it both ways.

 

Who are these pepople you are talking about? And do you really want justice served a payback?

 

Who wants to give Libby a free pass?

Besides, isn't it equally ironic that those who said Clinton's perjury was no big deal are not claiming Libby's was? You can't have it both ways.

I, for one, think Libby's was a big deal if he actually did it. I have no idea since I wasn't in the courtroom, and haven't seen the evidence. But he was not pardoned. He was not let off the hook.

 

I , too, would like to know who those "screaming" for Clinton's head were.

As far as committing perjury is concerned, does it really matter what it is for?

You seem to imply that Clinton should be excused because he lied "over a personal matter". Does that mean you would excuse Libby if he had lied "over a personal matter"?

 

How can you so often crawl into this hole? If you sincerely can't see the difference between these cases, there isn't much hope for you seeing anything in the light.

 

You are severly blinded by your unwavering loyalty to a corrupt and evil administration. You seem to believe that when a Republican does it, it's wonderful; if a Democrat does it, they are horrible.

 

So, MP, who are these who were clamoring for Clinton's head who are giving Libby a free pass?

 

Either you don't watch the news, or you turn a blind eye, but either way, you should do your own research. Your tone shows you think I lie, but that would be a false accusation as well. I'll get you started here.

I have heard on various programs, the following promoting either the commutation or a full pardon for "Scooter", but were out for Clinton for the same thing:

• Tony Snow
• Rush Limbaugh
• Michael Savage
• Laura Ingram
• Bill O'Reilly

While the following 25, still serving Senators, voted twice to impeach Clinton over the same thing that Scooter Libby did, yet are either silent or supporting of the Libby commutation:

• Wayne Allard (R-CO)
• Robert Bennett (R-UT)
• Kit Bond (R-MO)
• Sam Brownback (R-KS)
• Jim Bunning (R-KY)
• Thad Cochran (R-MS)
• Larry Craig (R-ID)
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Pete Domenici (R-NM)
• Mike Enzi (R-WY)
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
• Judd Gregg (R-NH)
• Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
• Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
• Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
• Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
• Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
• Trent Lott (R-MS)
• Dick Lugar (R-IN)
• John McCain (R-AZ)
• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)
• Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
• Gordon Smith (R-OR)
• George Voinovich (R-OH)